1. The Corporation was produced by Mark Achbar in 2004.
2. The central argument of this film revolved around corporations and their influence and relationship with politics, economies and cultures in the United States and around the world. The corporate model that was developed early in the 1900s has provided a place for companies to attain similar rights to that of a person. To play devil's advocate briefly, the corporate model provides protections for executives and owners of a business that partnerships and pure ownerships cannot provide, namely in lawsuits where the entity in discussion comes into trouble. There are several areas where this lack of personal liability has negative effects all around, as discussed in the film.
3. This film did a great job conveying the absolute complexity of the issue. To quote the film, "Could all of our daily interactions someday be driven by corporations?" Some of the individual and connecting sustainability problems are below:
Considering a company a person: Corporations legally obtain all the rights of a person. If your corporation is very successful, then you are talking about one very rich person to who "doesn't have a soul to save or a body to incarcerate" as the movie said. The film was rich with examples from laying off of employees to factory farming, although the message is clear, that corporations lack conscious.
No sense of time: If you feel you have been wronged by a corporation, often times the legal dispute for justice will take years and many people end up settling out of court. This is highlighted in many cases where pollution and its health affects are being disputed.
Price of life: When people do settle out of court, its often unsatisfying for individuals who have experienced loss to receive a check. How do you put a price on a human life? People affected by Bhopal got money because of the deaths that incurred there, but it doesn't make up for the emotional loss and the hardships of raising a family as a single parent for instance. This plays into another issue, the patenting of life. A corporation can now put their name on pieces of your genome, at what point will you be completely owned by all of the different branches of some of the leading life sciences companies?
Where is the money going?: Often times when a corporation thinks it's helping out a community, they are just directing government provided funds in ways that the community should have the right to decide. Pfizer and the subway scenario is a great example of this. Pfizer hired a guard (that wasn't even reliable apparently) for the subway in the area when maybe the community had a better idea of where that money could have gone. Instead, Pfizer is probably just trying to rope more employees into working at their plant by making it appear safer. These company's aren't "good neighbors," when they move into areas like this, often times its just a sign of environmental injustice because they don't hold corporate responsibility for wastes emitted or rules broken in an already depressed region.
Power of people: The power of individuals in a corporation is really strange. Essentially the CEO is the face of the organization, gets paid an exorbitant amount of money annually however has little real decision making abilities in regards to the company. They generally have the same cares and concerns as people on the outside as well, as highlighted in the film with the EarthFirst crew visiting the house of the CEO. They are accountable to the stakeholders, who often times care most about the industry's profits. This cites greed as another sustainability problem.
Inefficiency of regulations: In the regulatory world, laws are made in an effort to keep corporations in line and stop them from infringing on society in a negative way. In the corporate world, the bottom line matters. In this respect, it's often times cheaper for a corporation to break the law, pay the fine and continue operations that either pollute or oppress individuals as seen by examples like Exxon Mobile. These companies have many intelligent people working for them, I'm sure they know the local and federal laws that govern them.
Political interests: Based on knowledge from other great films like Flow, there is a strong connection between political interest and the corporate world. This wasn't too heavily discussed in this film but it's apparent government and corporations work hand in hand to ensure stable economies. Also many people who are former heads of companies get directly involved with federal government. Although this wasn't strongly cited in this film, I still believe it to be a large piece of the matrix of problems surrounding the corporate sustainability problem.
Power of the brand: Young children experience advertising from birth essentially. Any brand you use in your home or see on tv, that becomes ingrained somewhere. As children grow older, for no reason at all they may prefer New England coffee versus Newman's Own. Where did that distinction come from? Children nag more than ever as well, and the ad companies use subliminal psychology to aid in their nagging for items in the store. On a slightly unrelated note, the song "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted? Even at that birthday party your child was subject to a corporate advertising of sorts.
Corporate stake in the news: This is the one of the most striking issues revealed to me in this film. As an almost religious follower of the news, relying daily on the New York Times, NBC Today Show and local 11 PM news I was shocked to find out that following popular belief, the news crews don't find and make the news. The heads of the news organizations "make the news" that falls in line with their corporate sponsors. Case in point: why would NBC ever publish or say anything demeaning to GE? They are corporately linked, so never. The segment on Fox news from the film was really unnerving to me, especially because that probably happened mid-90s. Where are we today, how much of the news we hear is actually true? Retraction of the "whistleblower" status for the female news anchor also sites our judicial and systems of laws and how they are written as a mechanisms for issues as well.
4. There were many parts of this film I found really compelling. I thought the man who went to factories in the third world researching sweatshop labor was really interesting. I think its really important to reveal situations like that so that there is more corporate responsibility. There are so many watch dog organizations that have actually effected real change. The gentleman from the rug company that had an epiphany over the environment was really enlightening as well because it shows conscious within these organizations. The students who went to college based off of corporate sponsorship was a really effective storyline because it conveyed the absurd way that corporations will make a dollar, even if it is exploiting a (although willing) person. The two segments that intrigued me the most were the IBM and the holocaust portion, and as previously discussed the Fox news segment. The IBM discussion is a perfect historical instance where the priorities of corporations lie in profit, not in supporting the United States per say. This is interesting to me because of the relationship it seems like corporations have with the government, either the corporations are just greedy and want more profit by interacting with enemy nations or there are individuals in government who actually don't care whether we are warring with other nations and they turn their head or support this activity. Either way, very disgruntling. The Fox news conversation is intriguing because its the first real instance I've seen of news stations deliberately and conclusively trying to change the news. The "whistleblower" status getting retracted is also interesting, is there any justice in our legal system?
5. I was not compelled by a few parts of this movie. There was little discussion over "triple bottom line" initiatives. This might not have been as prevalent in 2004, but this past summer at my job the entire "triple bottom line" approach was ingrained completely in our business tactics as being resourceful in not just profit, but also people and "planet". I think a more "well rounded" approach to some of the issues would have just generally informed me better. Another aspect of the film that was strange to me was the voice between segments. Honestly, if its purpose was to really scare me, it worked because it gave the film a really dark feeling. The movie was very "doom and gloom" in some areas, I would have preferred some more optimism in general.
6. The film addresses a wide variety of viewers, it clearly affected the class and so I think younger adults are definitely a great audience for this film. Even if you aren't particularly informed on environmental issues, I think this film would work to inform you on a wider range of issues that are linked to the environment. I think that older adults who aren't familiar with the issues at hand would get something out of this film as well. I honestly can't think of an audience this film wouldn't address, I think its message would reach people on some level even if only one segment helped you think about the way you do things.
7. This film really needed a better explanation of why corporations are formed, what they legally mean and what the alternatives are for businesses. I'm in course that discusses this type of information, and so I felt already informed about why businesses would choose to incorporate, but I'm not sure if others are clear. Honestly, it makes great business sense to incorporate so that others cant sue you for your own personal assets if something goes wrong. Not all times that a business gets sued they knew they were even breaking the law, so its important to consider both sides and not be so weary of every business.
8. This film explored a few points of action that were interesting, and I can additional contribute more that I imagine might be feasible. Calling attention to these issues will help consumers make conscious decisions. In the Kathy Lee sweatshop scandal, the amount of press that story received opened the eyes of America to sweat shop labor. The various social movements that the United States has overcome are all case studies when examining all of the issues surrounding corporations. I think education is incredibly important, as well as better regulation. There will always be "brand names," but what brand supports the mini-economy of your family as well as the planet. Consumer demand can drive a product's development, and tighter regulations also can change the way we purchase if done correctly. The United States has become a country primarily driven on "services" also. If we can continue that trend, then wouldn't that lead to more sustainable usage of products? You could pay someone to fix your blouse rather than throwing it away and buying a new one.
9. This film provided a really segmented holistic view of the corporate model, and it was really awakening. IBM and it's relationship to the holocaust really caught my attention and drew me to try to find out more. There are surprisingly many resources to that end on the web. There's actually an entire novel about it titled "IBM and the Holocaust." One thing that did become clear was that IBM had it's own industry in Germany. (IBM)
I also wanted to find out more about Ray Anderson and his green carpeting business. Interface Global is actually pretty well known for their green initiatives. He did a 13 city tour and spoke at countless venues about his green mission. As I was reading this I kept thinking, ok so you think you do so much the environment... but think of how much CO2 you are burning on all those flights. Apparently Ray calculates his travel impact and then has whatever number of trees planted that will offset that cost to the environment, which is great because often times affluent public figures talk the talk but don't walk the walk (i.e. Al Gore's mansions and over the top lifestyle.) (Interface)
2. The central argument of this film revolved around corporations and their influence and relationship with politics, economies and cultures in the United States and around the world. The corporate model that was developed early in the 1900s has provided a place for companies to attain similar rights to that of a person. To play devil's advocate briefly, the corporate model provides protections for executives and owners of a business that partnerships and pure ownerships cannot provide, namely in lawsuits where the entity in discussion comes into trouble. There are several areas where this lack of personal liability has negative effects all around, as discussed in the film.
3. This film did a great job conveying the absolute complexity of the issue. To quote the film, "Could all of our daily interactions someday be driven by corporations?" Some of the individual and connecting sustainability problems are below:
- Considering a company a person: Corporations legally obtain all the rights of a person. If your corporation is very successful, then you are talking about one very rich person to who "doesn't have a soul to save or a body to incarcerate" as the movie said. The film was rich with examples from laying off of employees to factory farming, although the message is clear, that corporations lack conscious.
- No sense of time: If you feel you have been wronged by a corporation, often times the legal dispute for justice will take years and many people end up settling out of court. This is highlighted in many cases where pollution and its health affects are being disputed.
- Price of life: When people do settle out of court, its often unsatisfying for individuals who have experienced loss to receive a check. How do you put a price on a human life? People affected by Bhopal got money because of the deaths that incurred there, but it doesn't make up for the emotional loss and the hardships of raising a family as a single parent for instance. This plays into another issue, the patenting of life. A corporation can now put their name on pieces of your genome, at what point will you be completely owned by all of the different branches of some of the leading life sciences companies?
- Where is the money going?: Often times when a corporation thinks it's helping out a community, they are just directing government provided funds in ways that the community should have the right to decide. Pfizer and the subway scenario is a great example of this. Pfizer hired a guard (that wasn't even reliable apparently) for the subway in the area when maybe the community had a better idea of where that money could have gone. Instead, Pfizer is probably just trying to rope more employees into working at their plant by making it appear safer. These company's aren't "good neighbors," when they move into areas like this, often times its just a sign of environmental injustice because they don't hold corporate responsibility for wastes emitted or rules broken in an already depressed region.
- Power of people: The power of individuals in a corporation is really strange. Essentially the CEO is the face of the organization, gets paid an exorbitant amount of money annually however has little real decision making abilities in regards to the company. They generally have the same cares and concerns as people on the outside as well, as highlighted in the film with the EarthFirst crew visiting the house of the CEO. They are accountable to the stakeholders, who often times care most about the industry's profits. This cites greed as another sustainability problem.
- Inefficiency of regulations: In the regulatory world, laws are made in an effort to keep corporations in line and stop them from infringing on society in a negative way. In the corporate world, the bottom line matters. In this respect, it's often times cheaper for a corporation to break the law, pay the fine and continue operations that either pollute or oppress individuals as seen by examples like Exxon Mobile. These companies have many intelligent people working for them, I'm sure they know the local and federal laws that govern them.
- Political interests: Based on knowledge from other great films like Flow, there is a strong connection between political interest and the corporate world. This wasn't too heavily discussed in this film but it's apparent government and corporations work hand in hand to ensure stable economies. Also many people who are former heads of companies get directly involved with federal government. Although this wasn't strongly cited in this film, I still believe it to be a large piece of the matrix of problems surrounding the corporate sustainability problem.
- Power of the brand: Young children experience advertising from birth essentially. Any brand you use in your home or see on tv, that becomes ingrained somewhere. As children grow older, for no reason at all they may prefer New England coffee versus Newman's Own. Where did that distinction come from? Children nag more than ever as well, and the ad companies use subliminal psychology to aid in their nagging for items in the store. On a slightly unrelated note, the song "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted? Even at that birthday party your child was subject to a corporate advertising of sorts.
- Corporate stake in the news: This is the one of the most striking issues revealed to me in this film. As an almost religious follower of the news, relying daily on the New York Times, NBC Today Show and local 11 PM news I was shocked to find out that following popular belief, the news crews don't find and make the news. The heads of the news organizations "make the news" that falls in line with their corporate sponsors. Case in point: why would NBC ever publish or say anything demeaning to GE? They are corporately linked, so never. The segment on Fox news from the film was really unnerving to me, especially because that probably happened mid-90s. Where are we today, how much of the news we hear is actually true? Retraction of the "whistleblower" status for the female news anchor also sites our judicial and systems of laws and how they are written as a mechanisms for issues as well.
4. There were many parts of this film I found really compelling. I thought the man who went to factories in the third world researching sweatshop labor was really interesting. I think its really important to reveal situations like that so that there is more corporate responsibility. There are so many watch dog organizations that have actually effected real change. The gentleman from the rug company that had an epiphany over the environment was really enlightening as well because it shows conscious within these organizations. The students who went to college based off of corporate sponsorship was a really effective storyline because it conveyed the absurd way that corporations will make a dollar, even if it is exploiting a (although willing) person. The two segments that intrigued me the most were the IBM and the holocaust portion, and as previously discussed the Fox news segment. The IBM discussion is a perfect historical instance where the priorities of corporations lie in profit, not in supporting the United States per say. This is interesting to me because of the relationship it seems like corporations have with the government, either the corporations are just greedy and want more profit by interacting with enemy nations or there are individuals in government who actually don't care whether we are warring with other nations and they turn their head or support this activity. Either way, very disgruntling. The Fox news conversation is intriguing because its the first real instance I've seen of news stations deliberately and conclusively trying to change the news. The "whistleblower" status getting retracted is also interesting, is there any justice in our legal system?5. I was not compelled by a few parts of this movie. There was little discussion over "triple bottom line" initiatives. This might not have been as prevalent in 2004, but this past summer at my job the entire "triple bottom line" approach was ingrained completely in our business tactics as being resourceful in not just profit, but also people and "planet". I think a more "well rounded" approach to some of the issues would have just generally informed me better. Another aspect of the film that was strange to me was the voice between segments. Honestly, if its purpose was to really scare me, it worked because it gave the film a really dark feeling. The movie was very "doom and gloom" in some areas, I would have preferred some more optimism in general.
6. The film addresses a wide variety of viewers, it clearly affected the class and so I think younger adults are definitely a great audience for this film. Even if you aren't particularly informed on environmental issues, I think this film would work to inform you on a wider range of issues that are linked to the environment. I think that older adults who aren't familiar with the issues at hand would get something out of this film as well. I honestly can't think of an audience this film wouldn't address, I think its message would reach people on some level even if only one segment helped you think about the way you do things.
7. This film really needed a better explanation of why corporations are formed, what they legally mean and what the alternatives are for businesses. I'm in course that discusses this type of information, and so I felt already informed about why businesses would choose to incorporate, but I'm not sure if others are clear. Honestly, it makes great business sense to incorporate so that others cant sue you for your own personal assets if something goes wrong. Not all times that a business gets sued they knew they were even breaking the law, so its important to consider both sides and not be so weary of every business.
8. This film explored a few points of action that were interesting, and I can additional contribute more that I imagine might be feasible. Calling attention to these issues will help consumers make conscious decisions. In the Kathy Lee sweatshop scandal, the amount of press that story received opened the eyes of America to sweat shop labor. The various social movements that the United States has overcome are all case studies when examining all of the issues surrounding corporations. I think education is incredibly important, as well as better regulation. There will always be "brand names," but what brand supports the mini-economy of your family as well as the planet. Consumer demand can drive a product's development, and tighter regulations also can change the way we purchase if done correctly. The United States has become a country primarily driven on "services" also. If we can continue that trend, then wouldn't that lead to more sustainable usage of products? You could pay someone to fix your blouse rather than throwing it away and buying a new one.
9. This film provided a really segmented holistic view of the corporate model, and it was really awakening. IBM and it's relationship to the holocaust really caught my attention and drew me to try to find out more. There are surprisingly many resources to that end on the web. There's actually an entire novel about it titled "IBM and the Holocaust." One thing that did become clear was that IBM had it's own industry in Germany. (IBM)
I also wanted to find out more about Ray Anderson and his green carpeting business. Interface Global is actually pretty well known for their green initiatives. He did a 13 city tour and spoke at countless venues about his green mission. As I was reading this I kept thinking, ok so you think you do so much the environment... but think of how much CO2 you are burning on all those flights. Apparently Ray calculates his travel impact and then has whatever number of trees planted that will offset that cost to the environment, which is great because often times affluent public figures talk the talk but don't walk the walk (i.e. Al Gore's mansions and over the top lifestyle.) (Interface)
References:
IBM and the Holocaust Home. Web. 02 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/>.
"Interface Global - Ray Anderson Speaking Engagements." Interface Global. 2008. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. <http://www.interfaceglobal.com/Company/Leadership-Team/Ray-Watch.aspx>.